Tuesday, July 14, 2020

Hugh Hefner's Kid Wants A Career I n Politics-- Even "Joined" The Air Force To Spiff Up A Dreadful Résumé

>


California state Senator Holly Mitchell has one of the best voting records of any member of the legislature. Her West L.A., Mar Vista, Culver City, Ingelwood, West Adams, Leimert Park, DTLA, Crenshaw, South Central, Westmont and South L.A. constituents have reason to be proud of her-- and will almost definitely elect her to the County Board of Supervisors in November. That will trigger a special election early in 2021. The district demographics:
Latino- 50.04%
Black- 27.90%
White- 14.05%
Asian- 6.30%
The Playboy Mansion is not in the district, but Hugh Hefner's 28 year old son, Cooper Bradford Hefner, thinks American politics needs him in office and this seat is... maybe available. And... well, who hasn't heard the name Hefner? He announced yesterday that he's running, presumably as a Democrat, though he's a Trump-hating independent. He claims that he "almost" ran for Congress in 2016 against Karen Bass. Luckily he didn't.

This is his fancy (expensive) campaign announcement video. Raise your hand if you think what the California legislature needs an entitled rich white kid on the hunt for an opportunity to win higher office. Yeah, me neither.





Labels: , ,

Thursday, May 28, 2020

Jackie Fielder Stood up to Big Oil & Wall Street-- Now She's Taking On Real Estate's Top Politician In California

>


Jackie Fielder is a Native American (Two Kettle Lakota and Hidatsa), Mexicana, and queer educator and organizer running for state Senate against the most real estate-backed politician in California, Scott Wiener. Jackie's growing movement includes California Teachers, grassroots organizers, elected leaders across the country and, as of today, Blue America! Please consider contributing to her campaign by clicking on the 2020 Blue America state legislative thermometer below.

Goal ThermometerAfter earning both a BA in Public Policy and a MA in Sociology from Stanford, Jackie joined the Indigenous-led No Dakota Access Pipeline movement in her ancestral territories. Back in the San Francisco Bay Area, she became an organizer for public banking to divest San Francisco’s $11 billion city budget from pipeline construction, private prisons, and weapons manufacturing. As co-founder and lead organizer of the San Francisco Public Bank Coalition, she took on Wall Street lobbyists to pass statewide legislation and introduce a local ordinance to create the first municipal bank in the country.

Jackie’s opponent, Wiener, is bankrolled by the real estate interests profiting from the housing crisis, fossil fuel giants like Chevron, anti-police reform organizations, and corporations like WalMart. In 2018 he sided with the Republican Party in support of a dangerous police use-of-force policy. Later that year, he opposed a small tax on the largest corporations to fund vital housing and services for the homeless. How could that not be a quid pro quo?

California is the fifth largest economy in the world yet ranks in the bottom nationally for per pupil spending. Jackie supports protecting and expanding the public education budget, while her opponent repeatedly supported diverting funding away from public education.

Global pandemic has both sharpened focus on the inequalities of our society and demanded bold action and transformative solutions. Jackie knows we can’t afford to go back to the status quo, and that taking on the next global crisis requires learning our lessons now.

I hope you'll help Blue America elect a state Senator with the courage to take on the crises facing the state, the country, and the planet. And a progressive who will be on the Democratic bench in the country's biggest state.

I'll Be The First Indigenous Woman Elected To The California State Senate
-by Jackie Fielder


Let me introduce myself. I was born in California and raised by a single mother in an underserved neighborhood dotted with fossil fuel refineries. When I was still a student at Stanford, I watched videos of my relatives staring down the barrels of guns, being bitten by dogs, and pummeled with water cannons in subzero temperatures as they stood up to the Dakota Access Pipeline.

I founded the San Francisco Public Bank Coalition in 2017 after identifying the common denominator between oil pipelines, private prisons, and weapons manufacturing: Wall Street banks. We needed an alternative financial institution that would reinvest our tax dollars for the public good. Within two years, we passed AB 857 to allow municipalities to establish public banks, and won majority support for legislation to create one in San Francisco.

After campaigning successfully for police accountability as well as organizing Mijente’s No Tech For ICE campaign, I was tapped by Black Lives Matter co-founder Alicia Garza to take over teaching her Race, Women, and Class course at San Francisco State University. Even as a university lecturer, I found myself personally crushed by the housing affordability crisis and-- like so many other educators-- struggled to find an affordable room to rent.

I’m running for State Senate because we have a mandate to be bolder. Transformative policies like statewide single-payer healthcare, a Green New Deal for California, redressing epidemic income inequality, and investing in affordable housing and education for all have never been more urgent.

We don’t have any time left for excuses or despair, and the global health and economic crisis has proven that major challenges demand bold action. Every dollar you contribute helps us tell a voter, “You don’t have to live in fear for your future or the future of your loved ones-- you deserve a legislator who will fight for you.”





Labels: , , ,

Friday, February 22, 2019

Heroes And Villains-- Inside The California State Legislature

>




I don't follow the California state legislature as closely as I should. My excuse is that I'm too busy watching Congress and don't have the time. Luckily, here in California we have the Courage Campaign doing to job for us. This week they released their latest assessment of how the individual members of the state legislature are doing. When they sent it out yesterday, they noted that "Throughout their time in office, legislators are faced with so many issues that directly affect the well-being of all California communities: from criminal justice to workplace safety to the environment and more. As your representative, it’s their job to vote in line with your interests on issues to make our state a safe and happy home for everyone. Especially with a elected Democratic, veto-proof supermajority in the Legislature and a Governor who ran on a bold, progressive agenda, we must lead the nation forward and show that progressive policies work for all of us. We'll never address the challenges Californians face-- including skyrocketing housing costs, a health care system that puts profits over patients, gross overspending in our broken mass incarceration system, and a deeply underfunded education system-- unless elected officials are truly held accountable to the people in the nation's most progressive state."

Let's look at the Assembly first. There are only 18 Republicans left. One is too new to be rated and the other 17 have all been scored with "F." Among the Democrats six have A+ scores-- Ash Kalra (eastern San Jose), David Chiu (eastern San Francisco), Kevin McCarty (Sacramento), Mark Stone (Santa Cruz, Monterey), Reggie Jones-Sawyer (South L.A.), Rob Bonta (Oakland, Alameda, San Leandro) and Wendy Carrillo (Highland Park, East L.A.). Those are the best members of the Assembly. How about the worst ones-- the ones who are, in all but name, Republicans? 15 Democrats-- the so-called "mod squad"-- have the same "F" grades as the Republicans do, generally a corrupt bunch of worthless conservatives who take money from big oil, charter schools and other special interests (bolden names are in the Hall of Shame, the legislators who are the biggest bribe-takers in Sacramento):
Tom Daly- Anaheim, Santa Ana
Tim Grayson- Vallejo, Concord, Martinez
Sharon Quirk-Silva- Fullerton, Buena Park, Cypress
Sabrina Cervantes- Jurupa Valley, Norco, Corona, El Cerrito
Rudy Salas- Hanford, Wasco, Bakersfield
Patrick O'Donnell- Long Beach
Melissa Melendez- Lake Elsinore, Marieta, Wildomar
Ken Cooley- Citrus Heights, Rancho Cordova, Carmichael
Joaquin Arambula- Fresno
Jim Frazier- Vacaville, Antioch
Jim Cooper- Elk Grove, Lodi
Freddie Rodriguez- Ontario, Pomona, Chino
Brian Maienschien- Rancho Santa Fe, Poway, Carmel Valley
Al Muratsuchi- Torrance, Redondo Beach, Manhattan Beach
Adam Gray- Modesto, Merced, Los Banos
Now the state Senate, where there are only 11 Republicans still standing. Two are too new to be rated and the other 9 have "F." Among the Democrats four have A+ scores-- Bill Monning (San Luis Obispo, Monterey, Paso Robles), Hanna-Beth Jackson (Santa Barbara), Holly Mitchell (Culver City, Madera Height, DTLA, South L.A.), Mike McGuire (Arcata, Eureka, Fort Bragg, Santa Rosa, Marin County) and Toni Atkins (San Diego, La Jolla, Solano Beach)-- the best members of the Senate. And now the worst, the bribe-taking DINOs-- if fact Steve Glazer is generally considered the overall worst and most corrupt member of the state legislature:

Steve Glazer (feh!)

Steve Glazer- Concord, Walnut Creek, Livermore
Richard Roth- Riverside, Moreno Valley, Corona
Cathleen Galgiani- Stockton, Tracy, Lodi, Manteca
Anna Caballero- Merced, Madera, Los Banos, Salinas, Coalinga
Something good to keep in mind if any of your legislators happen to be among the very best or the very worst.


Labels: , , , ,

Friday, December 15, 2017

Derek Cressman For State Senate-- Guest Post

>


Derek Cressman, a veteran of the voting rights movement best known for his work to overturn Citizens United with Common Cause, is challenging incumbent Democratic state senator Richard Pan. Only three senate Democrats have a higher ranking by the California Chamber of Commerce than Pan, one of the most conservative Dems in the California legislature. Those three, Cathleen Galgiani, Steve Glazer, and Richard Roth, come from districts more conservative than Pan’s deep blue Senate District 6, which has more Bernie voters than Republicans. This arguably makes Pan the Democrat most out of sync with his district in the entire California legislature. Pan, a physician who was elected with massive financial support from the California Medical Association and the pharmaceutical industry, is one of just three faux-Democrats in the Senate who have not supported single-payer healthcare.

Goal ThermometerThis greater-Sacramento region district sent two Democrats to the November general election in 2014 and the prospects are good for that again in 2018, setting up a showdown between a progressive Dem and one who relies upon corporate money in a real test for the new leadership of the California Democratic Party. State Democrats will decide early next year whether to endorse a candidate who will champion the party’s platform of single-payer healthcare, or stick with an old boys’ network that circles the wagons around incumbents who undermine the party’s principles. Read Derek’s guest post below and check out his website at www.DerekCressman.com. You can donate to his campaign by tapping on the legislative elections thermometer on the right.


California Democrats Must Stand for Single-Payer Healthcare
-by Derek Cressman


Democrats in California have the power to enact a “Medicare for All” style of healthcare reform that would eliminate wasteful profiteering by private health insurance firms and provide basic healthcare to every Californian. Unlike at the federal level, where Senator Kamala Harris has joined Bernie Sanders and others to stake out a righteous policy position by co-sponsoring federal legislation only to be blocked by Republicans, our state legislature, which has a two-thirds democratic majority, could actually make it happen.

First off, it’s the right thing to do. If your house is threatened by wildfires, firefighters arrive within minutes with an implicit message that they are from the government and they are here to help. Even stingy conservatives are happy to pay for this important public service with our tax dollars because it’s the most efficient way to protect everyone. Yet if you are struck with a heart attack or cancer, you get help only if you can produce an insurance card and shell out big money for co-pays and deductibles. As the most prosperous society in history, California can and should meet our moral obligation to care for one another in the most cost-efficient way possible—government provided health insurance for everyone. Private health insurance companies add little value to our economy but exact huge costs with wasteful profiteering and outrageous CEO salaries. We know government provided insurance works from Medicare and Medi-Cal. In fact, the government is already providing funds for 71% of healthcare costs in California. It would be better, and ultimately cheaper, to bring that up to 100%.

Secondly, it’s imperative that Democrats strengthen trust with voters by standing firm on our beliefs. The California Democratic Party platform calls for “legislation to create and implement a publicly funded (single-payer), privately delivered, fiscally tractable, affordable, comprehensive, secure, high-quality, efficient, and sustainable healthcare system for all Californians.” But our overwhelmingly Democratic legislature has refused to enact this principle. When parties say one thing and do another, people stop believing in them. The rise in independent voters, the perils of the #DemExit movement and attraction among some voters to the Green Party can all be traced to the Democrats unwillingness to fight for what we say we believe in. At the federal level, a lack of trust in all institutions, including government, has paved the way for the politics of demagoguery and scapegoating. We need to combat that by showing voters that political parties stand for something and aren’t just posturing to keep their cronies in power.

Finally, California needs to come to grips with the new reality that we cannot count on the federal government to look out for our best interests for the foreseeable future. Even if we manage to rid ourselves of the Trump regime, we face a federal system that is rigged against the majority of people through a US Senate that overrepresents conservative voters in low population red states, a US House that is gerrymandered to such an extent that it cannot offer fair elections, an electoral college that denies sovereignty to a majority of US voters, and a Supreme Court that has been captured by a right wing cabal intent on cementing power for the one percent. While we must fight like hell to resist this federal onslaught even with the deck stacked against us, Californians need to forge our own future on healthcare as we are doing with global warming, marijuana, and justice for immigrants. We can no longer make excuses that we cannot provide single-payer coverage for our fellow Californians because the federal government won’t let us do it. We must find a way to do it ourselves by passing it at the state level and calling the congressional Republicans’ bluff on federalisms, state flexibility and block grants.

I became a candidate for the California Senate to give Sacramento-area voters and the new leaders of the California Democratic Party a choice between an entrenched incumbent who has undermined the Democratic Party’s principles around heath care and a Democrat who will fight for the party’s platform. How the California Democratic Party responds to this choice will tell us a lot about the party’s ability to hold on to progressive and independent voters in the years ahead.



Labels: , , , ,

Friday, June 03, 2016

How Green Was My Valley... Trouble In Southern California

>

#NeverReznik

-by Dorothy Reik

California’s Senate District 27 comprises some of the most beautiful and valuable real estate in the country. From the beaches of Malibu to the Santa Monica Mountains to the flat lands of the San Fernando Valley and beyond into Ventura County, it is treasured by environmentalists and coveted by their mortal enemies-- the developers. The district's registration is 43% Democratic, 27% Republican and 24% decline-to-state. In 2012, the now-termed out Fran Pavley (D) beat Republican Todd Zink 53.6% to 46.4%. There are 5 Democrats and a Republican in the June 7 jungle primary to succeed Pavley: Henry Stern, David Pollock, George Thomas, Shawn Bayliss, Janice Kamenir-Reznik and Steve Fazio (the Republican). The most controversial of the candidates in this environmentally progressive district is developer Janice Resznik, an agent of greed-driven destruction.

Now, back to the predatory developer world. In order to build in what is called SD-27, California's 27th Senate district, you need to be “entitled”-- you need to have the right. Those rights are called “entitlements” and the lawyers with the right connections, the ones who can get you those entitlements, are considered royalty. When one of them decides to run for office the gloves come off.

Ben and Janice Reznik are the king and queen of entitlements. They have gotten entitlements for billions of dollars worth of real estate deals, so when Janice abruptly decided she was entitled to the state Senate seat vacated by Fran Pavley she just took for granted that the other candidates would politely get out of her way. After all, Reznik & Reznik specialized in entitlements.

They had gotten Porter Ranch developer Shappell Industries, the developers of Porter Ranch, all their entitlements to build right there by that already existing Aliso Canyon underground gas storage yard. But now all those homeowners are entitled to is righteous anger and maybe reimbursement for the cost of moving out until the leak was capped and maybe for the cleanup of the oil slime that coats their homes.

But let’s start at the beginning. As hubby Ben points out "there were no land use lawyers back then" in 1979, when Shappell approached Reznik & Reznik for help with some land use issues... so Ben and his partner Janice created a whole new specialty-- land use litigation-- and we all know the rest.


Janice blames lack of oversight for Porter Ranch, noting on her website that "the debacle in Porter Ranch, which is part of the 27th District, revealed that the legislature was asleep at the switch."

And indeed they were! When the facts are revealed, it seems that the developers of Porter Ranch were not into disclosure. When Porter Ranch was permitted, the environmental report didn’t mention that oil field just down the road, as the Daily News reports.

Ben and Janice were there "in the trenches" as Ben revealed to the LABJ back in 2011, making sure those switches stayed turned off! During the 1980s the Rezniks represented virtually all the biggest developers according the L.A. Times. If you live in the Valley just look out your window or maybe just inhale and you can experience the results of their labors, or as Janice calls them, "accomplishments."


Expanding their reach soon after Porter Ranch was built, the Rezniks went after the oil companies themselves-- not as adversaries but as clients, hiring a former SoCalGas company regulatory attorney to head up their brand new Energy and Utility Division! So as methane wafted over SD-27, where Janice plans to reign, we know whom to thank-- the Rezniks. And don't be fooled-- the firm name is Reznik & Reznik-- the first is Ben and second is Janice-- or is it the other way around?

But the Rezniks weren’t through with the Valley... there was still Ventura Boulevard-- the charming, historical low rise walkable Main Street of the San Fernando Valley. Remember when the afternoon sun hit the Encino backyards north of Ventura. Well thanks to the Rezniks the sun shines there no more. Finally the City Council stepped in and created a plan to limit the height of buildings along the Boulevard-- but not before Reznik extracted an exemption for his client’s 172 unit apartment building in Encino. The L.A. Times reported on the negotiations. And on the Encino project in particular.


When homeowners objected to the scale of the project "Ben went nuclear," according to the L.A.Times, cynically threatening to add subsidized (read Section 8) housing to the plan, exactly the kinds of ugly tactics the Trump family was so famous for for so many decades. The Resniks got 150 units and they and their developer client headed right to the bank.

In 1997 facing cash flow problems, the Rezniks headed to the West Side, leaving behind a complaint about violations of their profit-sharing plan and their office building which was put up for sale-- but not their home. Too bad the Rezniks' division which represented management against labor wasn't there to defend them.

Reznik even went so far as to use labor negotiations to try to weaken CEQA-- a long range goal: “That’s part of where the reform needs to take place so you can avoid a situation where the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is used as a leverage tool for someone to gain other advantages that have nothing to do with the environmental welfare of the community at large,” Reznik said,” according to DTLA News. In 2015 Reznik predicted CEQA reform. Sorry, Ben. Even Jerry Brown can’t help you with this one.

But even at Jeffer Mangels, where he oversaw over $20 billion in real estate deals, nothing was too petty for the Rezniks. When their client, Norman Bench Advertising lost its exclusive contract to manage the bus benches, Patt Morrison reports that Norman started removing all the benches leaving mothers, children, the old and infirm to stand for as long as it took to for the bus to come. Nice work. L.A. scrambled to get another firm to rebuild them.


 But let’s be fair-- the Rezniks represented homeowners too-- like this sheik who wanted to build an 85,000 square foot mega mansion in Brentwood. The sheik filled the profile of the Rezniks' typical client-- he had "big problems and deep pockets!" Vanity Fair called their article on the project There Goes the Neighborhood!



Ben and Janice, like Bill and Hillary, are a team. They raise money together-- whether from developers or big oil (Chevron) aka the California Dental Association whom you can thank for all those mailers! The Rezniks use their connections well and if they get control of the gold mine that is SD-27 you can kiss CEQA good bye along with much of what is left of our open space. And if the developers want CEQA "reform" what will Chevron demand?

If you want to trust the U.S. to Team Clinton you know how to vote and if you want to trust SD-27 to Team Reznik then you also know how to vote. Maybe we would be better off with Bonnie and Clyde!


Labels: ,

Saturday, September 05, 2015

Why Did The California State Legislature, Controlled By Democrats, Defeat A Bill To Increase The Minimum Wage?

>


Richard Mathews is a candidate for California State Senate District 27 (Malibu, Encino, Santa Clarita, Thousand Oaks). Richard has a history of progressive leadership in the California Democratic Party, having served as a vice chair of the L.A. County party and a member of the executive board of the state party. Focusing on the climate-change crisis and local environmental concerns, Richard has helped the party take strong positions on these crucial issues.

Richard is also an activist who continues to take action on the issues that concern his local community. Whether it’s calling for the thorough cleanup of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory (site of a nuclear-power meltdown and toxic dumping), organizing and bringing awareness of the dangers of oil-train traffic through his district, or responding to the recent oil spill that affected Malibu, Richard is quick to step up and take action where action is needed.

Long-held progressive values are the backbone of Richard’s commitment to both social and economic equality. He has led the fight on raising the minimum wage, opposing the death penalty, and obtaining equal access to economic and educational opportunities. He wrote the state party platform language that calls for eliminating nuclear power. He made one of the party's top legislative priorities restoration of Glass-Steagall banking protections.

Richard has a strong background in science, having studied and worked in astrophysics at Caltech. He then turned to a successful career in computer engineering. He recognizes that our government leaders need a better understanding of science and a good working knowledge of the scientific process. Seeing such critical thinking skills as essential for making decisions on the most important issues of our day, he considers his experience and perspective a much-needed addition to our state legislature.

Richard has been recognized as one of the few true progressives with a real chance of winning. To find out more about his campaign, visit VoteRichard.org.

We asked him to introduce himself by helping us understand how the state legislature, controlled by Democrats, could have failed to pass a minimum-wage increase last week. Please give it a read, and if you like what you see, consider contributing to Richard's grassroots campaign here.


Minimum Wage Bill Defeated
by Richard Mathews


Last week, the California Legislature killed a bill for increasing the state minimum wage. The bill would have set the minimum to increase in steps to $13/hour in two years and then tying it to inflation for the first time.

Congress also has bills before it to increase the minimum currently stagnating at $7.25/hour, but Republicans will not give it a chance.

Overcoming this is why my leadership on this issue is needed in Sacramento. I succeeded in winning support for increasing the minimum wage in the California Democratic Party’s platform. As your state senator, I will win higher minimum wages for millions of California workers.

In 2011, the state party approved my resolution that called for a national increase to $11/hour and tying it to inflation. You might think that would have been an easy thing to get Democrats to accept, but it wasn't. This resolution was approved in committee by a single vote. It required hard work to lobby those committee members. It involved parliamentary maneuvers to make sure I had the needed votes.

In 2012, we got the state party platform changed to include the call for tying the minimum wage to inflation.

In 2013, in my position on the Legislation Committee of the state party, I got the party to list a minimum wage bill as one of its top legislative priorities. The state then passed the law to increase the minimum wage to $10/hour starting in 2016. The bill originally called for an inflation adjustment after that, but the adjustment was removed at the last minute.

The inflation adjustment is crucial because inflation has effectively reduced the value of the minimum wage, and we shouldn't have to fight this over and over again. We never corrected the minimum wage for the double-digit inflation of the '70s and '80s, and it is far past time that we do so. Our economy thrived on the higher value we had in the '60s. We can repeat that success.




The federal minimum wage has been increased 22 times. Real GDP per capita has steadily increased, even when the minimum wage has been raised. Jobs have grown even when the minimum was increased.

Since my first efforts on this, Raise the Wage has grown into a huge movement. We've won $15/hr in L.A. City and L.A. County, a level that is suitable for our high cost of living. I will bring an increase to all of California, and we will adjust for future inflation.

Science and Economics

My background is in computer engineering and astrophysics, so it is important to me to follow the science.

The Socratic Method was used by the ancient Greeks. You just think through a problem and come up with what "must be" the answer.

What were the successes of the Socratic Method? A belief that the world is made of four elements: earth, air, water, and fire. A belief that you could turn lead into gold if you could just find the right recipe. A belief that the Earth is the center of the universe. The highest technology developed in that time was not much more than steel and the wheel.

On the other hand, the Scientific Method relies on experimentation. Data. Facts. You repeatedly go through a cycle of developing a model, using that to make predictions, running experiments, and using the results to confirm or refute the model. The goal is to improve the model to make more accurate and more detailed predictions and repeat the cycle.

What are the successes of the Scientific Method? Computers. Smart phones. Internet. HD TV. Sending men to the moon. Sending spacecraft to the edge of the Solar System.

We have a lot of economists today who work by the Socratic Method. They say that inflation must be soaring despite what the numbers tell us. We must need to make people suffer. The free market must lead to the best of all possible worlds.

The existence of all that bad economics does not mean that all economics must be bad. There are good economists out there who really rely on data to produce solid results. Just as a physicist can model zillions of molecules of air using the ideal gas law and reduce all the variables down to just temperature and pressure, so good economics can accurately model the way billions of people contribute to the economy.

You can look at 50 states. You can look at 20 or so developed countries. You can look at hundreds of years of economic data for each. Together, you have thousands of data points. You make predictions, and you test those predictions against new data that comes in. You use natural controls on experiments by comparing jurisdictions where something changed and comparing with similar jurisdictions that didn't have similar changes. You include variables for the change you are interested in studying as well as for everything else that incidentally changed.

In my political life, I have worked on many economic issues such as budgets, job creation, boosting technology and infrastructure, and banking regulations. I always look for economics based on science. If I read studies and they don't show predictions leading to experiments leading to conclusions, I ignore them.

Minimum Wage Science

When you apply science to the minimum wage, you find that the fear encouraged by our opponents is completely unfounded. Increasing the minimum wage has never created a statistically significant loss of jobs. It has never created a significant increase in prices. I has never slowed the economy in any measurable way.

But, using the Socratic Method, you might say, "This doesn't make sense. The money for the higher wages must come from somewhere." You'd be as wrong as those who believe in a flat Earth (which is funny because even the ancient Greeks knew the earth was round and had even done quite a good job at measuring its size).

If one company increases wages, you'd be right. The money does have to come from somewhere. Some combination of the following must happen:

the company cuts costs, for example by cutting the number of employees;
the company increases revenue by raising prices;
the company reduces profit.

But this is not the case if many companies raise wages at the same time.

The American Economic Association sent a letter on the minimum wage to President Obama and Congress last year. It was signed by more than 600 economists, including seven Nobel Prize winners and eight who have served as the organization's president. In calling for an increase in the minimum wage and then indexing to inflation, they wrote,
In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front.
It is crucial to remember that we are talking about income not assets. It is hard to increase everyone's real assets at the same time. It is not so hard to increase everyone's income at the same time. The key is to make money move faster. Higher wages do just that.

To use some simple round numbers, say you have a thousand people in a civilization. Each has a thousand dollars. The total money supply is a million dollars. Now say each dollar changes hands once a month. The civilization's combined income is $12 million per year. With a thousand people, the average income is $12,000/year.

Now speed things up. Everyone still has $1000, but dollars change hands twice a month. Total income becomes $24 million per year, so the average is $24,000/year.

The money to increase incomes didn't have to come from somewhere. The average person still has $1000. We didn't add money to the economy. But the income for every person could double.

This is what happens when we raise wages broadly.

Say you own a pizza parlor. Since the 2007-2008 crash of our economy, business has been very bad. Many of your former customers don't have enough cash to be able to order your pizza. If you (and only you) increase your wages, you'll have higher costs but no more customers. If everyone increases wages, a lot of those former customers will have some leftover cash and start ordering pizza again. Your profits will increase because you are selling more pizza. Your profits will decrease because you are paying more to your workers.

And here is the big thing: every study that has ever looked at real data has found that the increase in profits and the decrease in profits just about cancel. The increased wages are paid for by speeding up the flow of money through the economy.

For example, Card and Krueger compared what happened in New Jersey when the minimum wage increased with what happened in nearby portions of Pennsylvania that had no increase. They found jobs were not lost. In fact they found that low-wage jobs were gained. While they did see an increase in overall New Jersey prices, these increases were not associated with stores most affected by the minimum wage increase.

The Center for Economic and Policy Research reviewed studies on the matter and found the most likely reasons for minimum wage increases not affecting the number of jobs are "reductions in labor turnover; improvements in organizational efficiency; reductions in wages of higher earners ('wage compression'); and small price increases."

Increasing the minimum wage does not cause people to lose jobs. It does not cause prices to shoot up. It does not cause profits to fall.

Increasing the minimum wage does reduce suffering of poverty for many people. It does give people the opportunity to start lifting themselves up.

Join me to make better lives for ordinary people. Join me to apply sound science to developing good policy. Whether it is economic science or climate science, high tech computers or water delivery, science and engineering make our lives better--if we actually listen to the scientists.

Richard M. Mathews
Mathews for State Senate 2016

Again, you can contribute to Richard's campaign for the state Senate here.



Labels: , , , ,